Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

1. Your answer is non-responsive.
2. Your answer is evasive. How is claiming to be an experienced researcher and director of a BF research project any different than claiming to be an expert?
3. Your dishonesty continues. Your comments imply, and are intended to imply, that the photo was actually posted on these forums, and were not simply a hyperlink that most people probably didn't follow.

By the way, I notice that you still have not provided any information about your extensive experience at the Alamogordo Primate Research Center. I'm sure that everyone here would appreciate insight into BF physiology and behavior from an experienced primatologist such as yourself, especially if we had the chance to read some of your previous work to better understand your current research.

Sorry my reply wasn't satisfactory. Like I said before if you saw a chimp great, if you saw a gorilla, not so great.

So you noticed that I've not posted my personal details on the forum. You will continue to notice that.

You know Chris, you make me want to stress this forums rules on civility and language as you are right now at the BFF again pretending how you knew the pic was a chimp the whole time. I take back anything that I said about you perhaps not being dishonest. You are an odious little troll and a liar. You deserve everything you get here. I am done with you.

So you noticed that I've not posted my personal details on the forum. You will continue to notice that.

Unfortunately, you are the one that brought up the "fact" that you have years of experience with chimpanzee's at Alamogordo

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

[moved to Anybody seen one part 1]
Given, it may have been obvious to me because of my years spent interacting with chimps at the Alamogordo Primate Research. There's no need for me to blow my own horn so I usually don't especially to individuals who hide who they are. But it is still funny that someone would accept that black and white WIKI pic without question. Skeptic(s) at that. That makes something else obvious to me.

leisureclass is not digging into your personal life. He is asking for evidence for the claim you made. Your dodging of his direct question only makes it all the more transparent.

It's very kind of you to point out I may not be a liar, simply delusional.

The words "delusion" and "delusional" are often thought to only represent pathological experiences but that is not the case. A delusion is simply a false belief and in that respect are quite common even in non-clinical populations (including us skeptics). Given that there is no evidence of Bigfoot being anything other than fakes and imaginative misidentifications then the belief that you have seen one is false - a delusion. Something which only seems real but is not actually so.

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Yes I know what I have seen. What I have seen are the creatures described as Bigfoot.

"I know what I saw" is the common catchcry of Bigfoot belief.

"Seeing is believing" - we are all taught from a young age to trust our senses but in actuality that trust is misplaced. It is a part of being a normal human being that we occasionally experience (see, smell, hear, feel) things which are not so and which deceive our senses. Such misperceptions (or misinterpretations) are often indistinguishable from the real thing - ie they appear as real as anything else even though they aren't.

Example: I am no magician but I can make a coin disappear and re-appear behind the observer's ear. If you don't know that it is just a trick then it may be thought of as being real MAGIC (a false belief). But most know that it is just a sleight of hand even if they cannot perceive the trick in action.

Seeing is Believing also works in reverse: Believing is Seeing where the mind fills-in the details according to one's pre-existing beliefs or mind-set.

If you value your fallible senses (not to mention errors of cognition and memory) over the objective evidence then sure you saw something that wasn't so, something Enchanting. Boogeyman, Bigfoot, extraterrestrial - whatever floats your boat. Like your enthusiastic comrades you'll be chasing a figment of your imagination fruitlessly for the rest of your life. Is it any wonder some resort to faking it in order to prove it?

However, if you value the objective evidence over that which you perceive, feel, and\or remember (which takes discipline) then you are on your way to Enlightenment.

Macnick & Martinez-Conde (2011) Sleights of Mind: What the Neuroscience of Magic Reveals About Our Brains

Skepticism is as much about questioning yourself (ie one's own experience of things) as it is about questioning others. There are very good reasons why "I-know-what-I-saw" just doesn't cut it critically...

And no sailor that was a giant squid witness was ever able to show that they were not lying. Until one washed up on a beach.

You really don't see the difference in the difficulty level of collecting evidence (such as photographs, bodies, excretions, etc.) for the existence of giant squids, a creature who lives 2,000 feet down in the deep sea, and collecting evidence for a terrestrial primate that lives in a populated area like Kentucky? Don't you think that the very fact that we can't even explore 95% the ocean due to its depth made it a little bit harder to find evidence that giant squids existed?

Even with the great difficulty in finding evidence for giant squids due to its habitat, we still have several pieces of evidence that are far superior to any of the evidence provided for Bigfoot---we have bodies, and we have severalclearphotos, as well as videotape.

It's not totally impossible for Bigfoot to exist in Kentucky. To assume that just because it's a large animal, it would have had to have been discovered by now is a fallacy of some sort. If it's real, it could have the intelligence to avoid detection. While no bodies have been recognized by scientists, it doesn't completely rule out the possibility, but it does make it seem more unlikely.

I think some of us want answers so bad, that we conclude for ourselves that it does or doesn't exist. That's not skepticism. I think it's important to stay open minded on the issue.

It's not totally impossible for Bigfoot to exist in Kentucky. To assume that just because it's a large animal, it would have had to have been discovered by now is a fallacy of some sort. If it's real, it could have the intelligence to avoid detection. While no bodies have been recognized by scientists, it doesn't completely rule out the possibility, but it does make it seem more unlikely.

Bigfoot is intelligent enough to avoid detection and yet there are these thousands of sightings of it galumphing around in plain sight. Which is it?

Conspicuous absence is not a fallacy. We would expect to see bigfoot if they existed, just as we'd expect to see Buicks if someone claimed it was raining Buicks. And by seeing I don't mean accepting someone's anecdote uncritically. The longer we go without seeing bigfoot--and I mean really seeing them--the less likely it is that they exist. I think that at this point, one can be confident that there are no bigfoot.

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

I think some of us want answers so bad, that we conclude for ourselves that it does or doesn't exist. That's not skepticism. I think it's important to stay open minded on the issue.

It makes no difference to me if bigfoot exists or not, and I think it's the same for most other skeptics. I'm open to evidence, which provides a serviceable understanding for what being open-minded means.

One of the many fictions in bigfootery is that there are people hostile to bigfoot, or worse--in on the conspiracy to cover it up. What a load of hooey. Fact is, the evidence isn't there, the bigfoot club is pretty much a cult, and there are so many hoaxes that the default is to assume any sighting or alleged evidence is tainted.

__________________"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde

Chris, you provide your name and a telephone number on your website, correct? So what is "personal" about posting something like "I scooped chimp poop at the APC every day from 1988-1993"? Your failure to provide even a claim to back up your claim of some special knowledge of primate anatomy makes folks rightly suspicious that you don't have anywhere near the experience working with chimps that you wanted us to think you had. That is dishonest. I also don't buy for a minute you recognized the chimp in the CRG photo 'til I pointed it out.

It's not totally impossible for Bigfoot to exist in Kentucky. To assume that just because it's a large animal, it would have had to have been discovered by now is a fallacy of some sort. If it's real, it could have the intelligence to avoid detection. While no bodies have been recognized by scientists, it doesn't completely rule out the possibility, but it does make it seem more unlikely.

I think some of us want answers so bad, that we conclude for ourselves that it does or doesn't exist. That's not skepticism. I think it's important to stay open minded on the issue.

It's not totally impossible for Bigfoot to exist in Kentucky. To assume that just because it's a large animal, it would have had to have been discovered by now is a fallacy of some sort. If it's real, it could have the intelligence to avoid detection. While no bodies have been recognized by scientists, it doesn't completely rule out the possibility, but it does make it seem more unlikely.

Don't forget that if there is one animal, or a family group, there must also be a breeding population. When considering likelihood, it's necessary to consider what size a minimal population might be, and the likely foraging area of that size of population. One has to estimate the likelihood that a breeding population of such a large creature can remain hidden, even from aerial surveys.

__________________Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...

__________________Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

IF BF existed, why would there need to be a breeding population in Kentucky for there to be BF's in Kentucky? I mean, these things can move, can't they? So, one wanders in every now and then, and wanders away again. There are plenty of examples of that sort of thing in nature.

IF BF existed, why would there need to be a breeding population in Kentucky for there to be BF's in Kentucky? I mean, these things can move, can't they? So, one wanders in every now and then, and wanders away again. There are plenty of examples of that sort of thing in nature.

Mike

Give me an example of a primate that exhibits this behavior of wandering around singly or in a single family group.

__________________What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

IF BF existed, why would there need to be a breeding population in Kentucky for there to be BF's in Kentucky? I mean, these things can move, can't they? So, one wanders in every now and then, and wanders away again.

Assuming a bigfoot that is diploid, has a generation time of about 20 years, occupies a home range at least as big as that of grizzly bear (probably the largest of any temperate mammal in North America), and occurs across the basic distribution represented in the BFRO database (i.e., there are bigfoots in the PNW, Southwest, Rockies, Great Lakes, Ozarks and Ouachitas, Midwest, Appalachians, Gulf Coast, Southeast, Adirondacks, and New England) . . .

It's difficult to envision a scenario in which we've got 10 or so bigfoots in each of the US states, keeping the continental population going. If bigfoots are living beings with chromosomes and DNA and sex and birth rates and death rates, then they'd be susceptible to the same general ecological principles as other species, genetic bottlenecks and extinction among them. The only way for little pockets of them to persist here and there would be for a continental network of dispersal to unite otherwise isolated populations that in total would have to number in the thousands to be viable.

Of course, talk like this just fuels special pleading from the 'footers along the lines of . . .

1. we have no idea what the demographic status of the species might be
2. bigfoots could . . . live a really long time, have an unusually low mutation rate, be smart enough to avoid stochastic extinctions, etc.
3. we'd have no idea if there was a continental dispersal of bigfoots right under our noses, because bigfoots can cover a lot of ground at night using rivers, tall cornfields, etc. as dispersal corridors, etc.

We can say that Chris claims to have observed a "family group", indicating that the species is breeding in whatever former strip mine he'd like us to believe is his magical bigfoot stomping ground. If they're hanging around long enough to breed then we can be sure that 1) they could be photographed, 2) there is abundant feeding sign in the areas, and 3) a "researcher" should have no problem collecting wheelbarrows-full of stinking squatchy poop.

Bigfoot is intelligent enough to avoid detection and yet there are these thousands of sightings of it galumphing around in plain sight. Which is it?

Conspicuous absence is not a fallacy. We would expect to see bigfoot if they existed, just as we'd expect to see Buicks if someone claimed it was raining Buicks. And by seeing I don't mean accepting someone's anecdote uncritically. The longer we go without seeing bigfoot--and I mean really seeing them--the less likely it is that they exist. I think that at this point, one can be confident that there are no bigfoot.

I agree. The first report of the Gorilla is thought be from the 5th century BC but solid proof of it didn't appear until 1847 and the larger mountain gorilla took until 1902. Reports of Bigfoot go back to the time of the Native Americans and you would think by now something...anything would have shown up.

The fact that nothing has shown up odd are Bigfoot is the product of over active imagination, hoaxers, and misidentifications.

Hello Chris, I don't believe we've met but allow me to pitch in my two cents:

Sadly I have to agree with the general consensus here and say that your pictures don't really do it for me. Even if I was inclined to believe in the existence of Bigfoot my response would to them to be the same, there is nothing in your photographs and videos to suggest that there is a living creature anywhere in them, known or unknown. They are that indistinct.

Now it may be, as you say, a question of equipment so do you mind me asking what you used?

__________________"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.

Remember, you're humouring me. This is all just hypothetical, and starting from our shared assumption that there is no such thing......

But this question of yours is the reason I made my comment, above. I don't know the first thing about Kentucky, or any of the neighbouring states. I was only triggered into life by the "It's impossible" post further up the page, which displays an obvious weakness in critical thinking. So, there may be perfectly good reasons why they wouldn't wander in from neighbouring states if they existed....but I'm afraid I don't know anything about the area, and am asking you guys to tell me what those reasons might be.

The Shrike. Yes, nice analysis, as always. But the sole point I was getting at was the claim that it is impossible for a below-breeding-group-size transient "population" to be in a localised area. Because it is possible with almost any mammal, in the right circumstances, I just think the "impossible" tag was given a bit of a free pass when it really should have been challenged.

I hope I don't have to stress again that I am a sceptic. There is no BF. But I do battle with the concept of "impossible".

It's from earlier in the discussion. I said the local natives protected the Cross River Gorillas because they were considered "hairy people" and of course that was promptly denied.

I recall a JREF member (I forget the name) posting in the affirmative, agreeing that the name "hairy people" can be, and historically has been, used by several human populations to describe a species of ape with whom they share territory. "Orangutan" is Indonesian and Malay for "person of the forest", to name one example.

What does allowing this fact, even or especially with regard to the Cross River gorilla, have to do with bigfoot?

__________________"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix

What does allowing this fact, even or especially with regard to the Cross River gorilla, have to do with bigfoot?

I believe he was attempting to set the stage for why there is no Bigfoot evidence. They are never killed because anyone that sees one understands that they are the hairy-people of the forest, protectors of the wood, and should be respected and cherished. Like Chris does.

I come to the conclusion that the reports of bigfoot don't go back to the time of the arrival of native Americans, and footer's claims, along with their stupid gorilla arguments, are two of the more disingenuous arguments that they employ to argue for bf.

IF BF existed, why would there need to be a breeding population in Kentucky for there to be BF's in Kentucky? I mean, these things can move, can't they? So, one wanders in every now and then, and wanders away again. There are plenty of examples of that sort of thing in nature.

Mike

As a resident of KY I will state even your scenario is incorrect.

Gray wolves were extirpated from KY, yet one was recently shot and confirmed via DNA. Most likely the only damn gray wolf in KY and it gets whacked.

Remember, you're humouring me. This is all just hypothetical, and starting from our shared assumption that there is no such thing......

But this question of yours is the reason I made my comment, above. I don't know the first thing about Kentucky, or any of the neighbouring states. I was only triggered into life by the "It's impossible" post further up the page, which displays an obvious weakness in critical thinking. So, there may be perfectly good reasons why they wouldn't wander in from neighbouring states if they existed....but I'm afraid I don't know anything about the area, and am asking you guys to tell me what those reasons might be.

The Shrike. Yes, nice analysis, as always. But the sole point I was getting at was the claim that it is impossible for a below-breeding-group-size transient "population" to be in a localised area. Because it is possible with almost any mammal, in the right circumstances, I just think the "impossible" tag was given a bit of a free pass when it really should have been challenged.

I hope I don't have to stress again that I am a sceptic. There is no BF. But I do battle with the concept of "impossible".

Mike

My question wasn't particular to Kentucky, but just in general why would a bigfoot wander around in North America, especially since we have roads everywhere the 'foots will need to cross those roads?

Mike,
Since you believe nothing is impossible you're a defense attorney's dream juror. Put 12 people just like you on a jury and we get the Casey Anthony verdict.

Remember, you're humouring me. This is all just hypothetical, and starting from our shared assumption that there is no such thing......

But this question of yours is the reason I made my comment, above. I don't know the first thing about Kentucky, or any of the neighbouring states. I was only triggered into life by the "It's impossible" post further up the page, which displays an obvious weakness in critical thinking. So, there may be perfectly good reasons why they wouldn't wander in from neighbouring states if they existed....but I'm afraid I don't know anything about the area, and am asking you guys to tell me what those reasons might be.

The Shrike. Yes, nice analysis, as always. But the sole point I was getting at was the claim that it is impossible for a below-breeding-group-size transient "population" to be in a localised area. Because it is possible with almost any mammal, in the right circumstances, I just think the "impossible" tag was given a bit of a free pass when it really should have been challenged.

I hope I don't have to stress again that I am a sceptic. There is no BF. But I do battle with the concept of "impossible".

Mike

Its basically a philosophy thing. Some philosophers will say you should never say never, impossible, no, etc. One should always also use "based on the currently available data", for example. If you use an utilitarian, practical approach and if the odds are so small they tend to zero or require a major change in our understanding of the universe and the way it works, then well, its OK. I can not fly just by flapping my hands. Its impossible that there is a massive black hole between the Earth and the Moon. Its impossible for the Earth to be hollow. Unless we are in one of those esoteric philosophical discussions, "its impossible" is acceptable - and this includes KY bigfoot.

Transient population? Going from where to where else? Why not caught "on the road"? Below the sustainable population level? Since when and for how long it would last before the last one is dead? Right circunstances? And those would be...

__________________Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.